There’s a bit, 1m40s in, into this new Assassin’s Creed Revelations trailer that I feel is a microcosm for how Ubisoft views the PC. A guard stands over a collapsed and bloodied man, who represents the PC gamers excited by the game but who have to wait for them to kick the console beta version out first. The guard then punches the downed man. The fist is Ubisoft’s DRM.

I still want to play it. Even though I’ve never managed to finish a single game, I’ve loved Ezio’s rooftop murdering ways, and Constantinople’s roofs are the prettiest yet. There’s some stuff in the trailer about the story, no doubt, but I spend so much time climbing, running and jumping that I’ve no idea why Ezio is killing people at this point, or who Desmond is. It’s going to get even more confusing when the game leaps to first-person in certain missions. I’ll wait for the audio book.

I haven’t even finished the first one, but I’m not entirely sure why not.

Actually that’s a lie. It’s a game that seems to be intended to be played in a big chunk, but is structured more episodically, like a TV series. After I’ve played a bit, I always feel like I should go away and come back later, but when I do come back, I’ve forgotten how to play and have to start again.

The first one is god-awful in it’s repetitiveness. I persevered through it, but you won’t miss a hell of a lot if you just watch the last ten minutes on Youtube and then go straight into AC2, which is orders of magnitude more enjoyable and a good candidate for GOTY.

From Wikipedia: modern Turkish name İstanbul derives from the Greek phrase eis tin polin, meaning “in the City” or “to the City”. This name was used in Turkish side by side with Kostantiniyye, the more formal Arabic–Persian adaptation of the original Constantinople, during the period of Ottoman rule

I played number 1. It had some OK game elements and some nifty graphics, but I could never get over how insanely, and tediously, repetitive it was. There were basically just 3 or 4 missions that were repeted over and over for 10-12 hours straight. Plus, the plot was kind of retarded (what with the unnecessary VR framing device), and the combat was pretty awkward.

So are the sequels any less repetitive/awkward?

I’d maybe get them the next time they are on sale on steam if they are any better than AC1. But, from my experience with it, I think AC1 is one of the most overrated games ever. It’s not awful, it just has about enough content for a demo, but stretched out to 10 hours through repetition.

I found them less repetitive and awkward (but then again, I loved the first one so I’m probably the wrong person to answer this). AC II is currently £15/$20/€30 (no, seriously, €30 which is over $40, bloody hell, highwaymen at least have the decency to wear masks).

If you’re in the states then I’d say go for it… actually, scratch that, just wait for the Christmas sale no matter where you are, screw it; you’re taking a gamble that you won’t find them just as tedious as the first one.

I’ve played all three, not played through any of them, but here’s my opinion:

1 was shite. For the reasons you named.
2 was moderately good. Played it for maybe 10 hours (about halfway through).
Brotherhood was the fulfilment of the promise of the first one. It was really good, and I almost played through the whole thning (also did a lot of side-missions). Why didn’t I finish it? For the same reason I don’t finish many games: no idea.

AC1 bored me after a fairly short time. I bloody loved AC2, which finally added a game onto the free-running framework, and Brotherhood threw even more gameplay elements into the mix.

The overplots are goddamn terrible but they’re excellent games. Much better with a pad, though – the free-running is slightly more fluid with the mouse but literally everything else is awkward unless you’re using a gamepad, particularly the menus and combat.

I didn’t like 1 or 2 (luckily I only borrowed 2). 2 was definitely better, but I can’t remember what I was doing any of that running and jumping FOR. It was fun to climb some buildings and chase some people, but I didn’t find much actual motivation to do either of those things after the initial excitement wore off. If you enjoy those activities for their own sake then you’ll enjoy 2, otherwise skip it.

I’ve only played 1 and 2, and found 2 to be much, much better than one. Still, it’s a good game trapped in a bad port. The plot is terrible. Completely, 100% terrible. It has some intriguing conspiracy theory stuff going on, but the end just sucks.

Also, they need to pick a new assassin and era. How about ancient Egypt, ancient Greece, or Nineteenth century Europe? The way two ended read as a cheap ploy to reuse the same assets.

I actually preferred 1 to 2. I liked the travelling between cities. More of the missions were assassinations, and you could approach them with more freedom: from the rooftops, or in the front door. From a distance or up close.

The eavesdropping missions were boring but over quickly. The beat-him-up missions were a little boring but over quickly. It took too long for you to learn how to counter-attack. Guards getting mad if you rode your horse more than 5mph were annoying. And the final boss fight was terrible.

I didn’t find 1 any more repetitive than, say, Shadow of the Colossus, which I loved. I was much more annoyed by the awful voice actor they used for Altaiir – there are NPCs with better voice acting than that (and some that are just as bad).

Forget Ubisoft and Warnerbrothers and their contempt for us. Saint’s Row The Third is coming out at the same time, is apparently (Giant Bombcast claims) pretty amazing. I’m seriously considering cancelling the Arkham City pre-order and showing support to THQ instead. I’ll pick up B:AC for cheap sometime next year. They don’t deserve my support.

I thought every bit of the Conspiracy-Through-The-Ages stuff in AC2 was amusing and occasionally hysterical, and it seemed like they intended it that way, while playing it with a straight face. Finding those crazy designs on the buildings was one of my favorite parts of the game.

I LOVE these games. I even loved the first one: I found that if you played it in small chunks (ie one assassination per sitting) it never got boring. But what kept me coming back was just those incredible cities. Aside from Rockstar, Ubisoft makes the best cities in the industry.

I also liked that literally everything you do saves your game. I’m never forced to play up to a save point, I can just find a leap of faith or even just a flag or something, and the game is saved. It’s such a convenient feature never having to worry about quick saving or checkpoints.

AC1 got me interested in the time period and the sites and people mentioned, and when you look into the background history it gets really obvious that the AC team put a lot of effort into getting their research right. City layouts matches with period maps (apart from that huge, anachronistic gothic cathedral in Acre), the targets are based on real historical figures and at least a few of them were even assassinated by hashishim. They even bothered to give King Richard a french accent.

The AC2 series has likewise got me raring to go city-hopping in northern italy. I wonder if Monteriggioni and that city with the towers have gotten a noticable tourism boost the last couple of years.

Am i the only one who likes the extra flavour Desmond and sci-fi part adds to the game?
Yes, the story is stupid conspiracy theories, but it’s kinda fun and taking Desmond out for a walk gives nice change of pace.

I’ve warmed to it over the course of the three games but I still think I personally would have preferred if the series was just a straight story about being an assassin.

I’d love to revisit the setting of the first game without the sci-fi attached. Assassin in the Holy Land during the Crusades is such a great concept and it really didn’t live up to it (Not entirely because of the sci-fi)

Well the last one had very weird dialog in that part, really forced with clipped timing, so it would match up with your movement however long you took. Strange as the rest of the game had far more coherent use of voices.

I tried to see if I could read it as some kind of statement about something, but I couldn’t find a way to push it far enough. I think they just didn’t want to use cutscenes during the desmond bits unless they absolutely had to.

I don’t get the attraction with this series. The conflict between the title and the actual gameplay winds me up. At no point do you ever really play as an assassin. And I’m talking Tenchu/Deus Ex stealth style. If it was called Fighter’s Creed I think I could enjoy it more.

I broke down during the summer sale and got the AC1/2/Bro package since there was a goof and it contained the deluxe version of everything. Already played AC1 on 360, but AC2 was a new venture for me and I really, really enjoyed it. Mostly pulling guys off roofs and watching them plummet to their deaths, followed by the inevitable screaming from below.

Say what you want about the games…these guys can put a city together like nobody else. Simply amazing vistas, great textures, all layed out in a playable way. None of their games have yet to disappoint in that regard. Personally, I have liked them all, I really like the theme and just running around the cities so they have never been too boring to me, even if the main character makes you feel like you are driving a tank around in ancient times with hardly a real threat to be had.

As personally attached to wrath and spite as I actually am, it shouldn’t be about that, IMO.

Instead it’s a punishment reward feedback vis
1. You put in shitty DRM? We dont buy that product and we let you know. We are also angry, so some of us wont buy your other products as well, either due to negative feelings toward your brand or assuming it will also have shitty DRM.

2. You dont put in shitty DRM? We can buy your product.

That way they can understand shitty DRM = unhappy customers + less sales.